Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5337 

knowledge through research and 

development. Another benefit of these 

proposed priorities and definitions is 

that the establishment of new DRRPs 

would improve the lives of individuals 

with disabilities. The new DRRPs would 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that would 

improve outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: January 18, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01418 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0033] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.368 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria under 

the Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

Grant program, also called the Enhanced 

Assessment Grants (EAG) program. The 

Assistant Secretary may use one or more 

of these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions using funds from fiscal 

year (FY) 2012 and later years. The 

Department takes these actions in order 

to establish priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria that 

are likely to recognize high-quality 

proposals and to help focus Federal 

financial assistance on the pressing 

needs of, and promising developments 

in, developing or enhancing 

assessments under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before February 25, 2013, and we 

encourage you to submit comments well 

in advance of this date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

we do not receive duplicate comments, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Enhanced 

Assessment Grants—Comments’’ at the 

top of your comments. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘How To Use This Site.’’ 

Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or 

Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (Attention: Enhanced 

Assessment Grants—Comments), U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 3w110, Washington, 

DC 20202–6132. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Shackel. Telephone: (202) 453–6423 or 

by email: erin.shackel@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. 

Please note that we have included 

existing requirements and selection 

criteria in this document to provide 

context and to make it easier to 

comment on the requirements and 

selection criteria we are proposing. We 

seek comment only on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways the 

Department could reduce potential costs 

or increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in room 3W110, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, 

DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, 

Monday through Friday of each week 

except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request the 

Department will provide an appropriate 

accommodation or auxiliary to aid an 

individual with a disability who needs 

assistance to review the comments or 

other documents in the public 

rulemaking record for this notice. If you 

want to schedule an appointment for 

this type of accommodation or auxiliary 

aid, please contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the EAG program is to enhance the 

quality of assessment instruments and 

systems used by States for measuring 

the academic achievement of 

elementary and secondary school 

students. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
5338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1National Research Council (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

2 J. Stedron & A. Berger. 2010. NCSL Technical 

Report: State Approaches to School Readiness 

Assessment (updated August 2010). Denver, CO: 

National Conference of State Legislators. 

www.ncsl.org/documents/Educ/ 

KindergartenAssessment.pdf. 

3S. Daily, M. Burkhauser, & T. Halle. 2010. ‘‘A 

Review of School Readiness Practices in the States: 

Early Learning Guidelines and Assessments.’’ Early 

Childhood Highlights 1 (3). Available at 

www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends2010_06_18_ECH_SchoolReadiness.pdf. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7301a. 

Proposed Priorities: 

This notice contains two proposed 

priorities. The Department may apply 

one or more of these priorities in any 

year in which a competition for program 

funds is held. 

Background: 

Section 6112 of the ESEA authorizes 

the Department, through the EAG 

program, to make competitive grant 

awards to State educational agencies 

(SEAs) and consortia of SEAs to help 

them enhance the quality of their 

assessment instruments and assessment 

systems. The EAG program includes the 

following four statutory priorities: 

(a) Collaborating with institutions of 

higher education, other research 

institutions, or other organizations to 

improve the quality, validity, and 

reliability of State academic assessments 

beyond the requirements for such 

assessments described in section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; 

(b) Measuring student academic 

achievement using multiple measures of 

student academic achievement from 

multiple sources; 

(c) Charting student progress over 

time; and 

(d) Evaluating student academic 

achievement through the development 

of comprehensive academic assessment 

instruments, such as performance- and 

technology-based academic 

assessments. 

An applicant for EAG funds must 

address one or more of these statutory 

priorities to be eligible for an award. 

Through this notice, the Department 

proposes two additional priorities that 

are designed to support States’ 

assessment work in early learning. The 

Department believes that a high-quality 

State early learning system involves 

several key components. These include, 

among other elements, early learning 

and development standards (as defined 

in this notice) that reflect the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice) and a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system (as 

defined in this notice). Such an 

assessment system, when well-designed 

and properly implemented, can inform 

teaching and program improvement and 

contribute to better outcomes for 

children.1

The priorities we propose in this 

notice focus on one piece of a 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system—the kindergarten 

entry assessment (KEA). In particular, 

these priorities will support the 

development or enhancement of KEAs 

and promote collaboration among States 

in the development or enhancement of 

a common KEA. 

A KEA is a critical piece of a 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system because it provides a 

snapshot of children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry. A 

well-designed and properly 

implemented KEA also can provide data 

to suggest areas where children may 

need interventions or additional 

supports in order to be successful in the 

early grades. Over time, when included 

as part of a comprehensive early 

learning assessment system, a KEA can 

provide data that will inform State 

efforts to improve child learning 

outcomes and help close achievement 

gaps. 

Over the last decade, States have 

demonstrated an increased interest in 

understanding children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry. 

Approximately half of States have 

instituted some form of early learning 

assessment.2 However, these 

assessments vary widely in their 

alignment with early learning and 

development standards, in the depth 

and scope of the domains they address, 

and in how the data generated are used.3

The priorities proposed in this notice 

build on the Department’s efforts to 

fund States collaborating to support 

children and youth across the cradlethrough-college-to-career continuum. 

Grants under three Department 

programs, including the EAG program, 

currently support State-led efforts to 

develop common assessments among 

States. The Department has funded two 

EAG awards to support States 

collaborating to develop English 

language proficiency (ELP) assessment 

systems. The assessments in the systems 

developed under these EAG–ELP grants 

must be aligned with English language 

proficiency standards that correspond to 

a common set of college- and careerready standards in English language arts 

and mathematics. The Department also 

is funding projects involving large 

consortia of States through the Race to 

the Top Assessment (RTTA) program 

and companion projects through the 

General Supervision Enhancement 

Grants (GSEG) program under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) to develop both general and 

alternate assessments that are aligned 

with a common set of college- and 

career-ready standards in English 

language arts and mathematics. 

In addition, the Department is 

maintaining support for the beginning of 

the cradle-through-college-to-career 

continuum through the Race to the 

Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT– 

ELC) program. Jointly administered with 

the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, RTT–ELC reflects the 

Departments’ commitment to supporting 

America’s youngest learners in 

developing the knowledge, skills, and 

dispositions toward learning they need 

to enter kindergarten ready to succeed 

in school and in life. To date, 14 States 

have been awarded RTT–ELC grants to 

fund education reform through 

developing or enhancing coordinated 

State systems of early learning. These 

RTT–ELC grants specifically support 

States’ efforts to increase the number of 

children with high needs enrolled in 

high-quality early learning and 

development programs. 

Recipients of RTT–ELC grants are 

eligible to apply for grants under the 

EAG program, including competitions 

(if any) using the KEA priority. 

However, the Department expects that 

these applicants will propose activities 

that are consistent with but do not 

duplicate activities included in their 

RTT–ELC applications. 

Proposed Priority 1—Kindergarten 

Entry Assessment 

Background: The Department believes 

that a high-quality KEA should provide 

critical information about children’s 

learning and development across all the 

essential domains of school readiness 

(as defined in this notice), inform 

instruction at kindergarten entry and 

throughout the year, and support efforts 

to close the school-readiness gap. 

Families should be able to use this 

information to provide support for 

children at home. Teachers should be 

able to use this information to modify 

instruction at kindergarten entry and 

throughout the year, adapt curricula, 

and focus professional development 

needs. In addition, a high-quality KEA 

should provide information to support 

effective programmatic decisions and 

better target investments in the years 

before kindergarten. Proposed Priority 1 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5339 

4See www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

5See Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Division B, 

§ 1832(b), Public Law 112–10 (April 15, 2011). 

6National Research Council. (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

would support the development or 

enhancement of high-quality KEAs. 

These assessments would be integrated 

into States’ student assessment systems 

and, if they exist, into the States’ early 

learning assessment systems. 

Under the proposed priority a KEA 

would be administered to children soon 

enough after their enrollment in 

kindergarten so that results could be 

used to inform instruction at 

kindergarten entry and throughout the 

year, adapt curricula, and focus 

professional development to help close 

any educational gaps. 

The proposed priority also would 

require that the KEA be aligned with 

States’ high-quality early learning and 

development standards (as defined in 

this notice), which are aligned with the 

States’ K–3 academic content standards 

in, at a minimum, early literacy and 

mathematics. In addition, KEAs 

developed under the proposed priority 

must measure each child’s development 

across the full range of the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice). 

A KEA developed or enhanced under 

this proposed priority must be of high 

technical quality and be consistent with 

the guidelines on early childhood 

assessments made by the National 

Research Council.4 We propose to 

require that these KEAs be consistent 

with the National Research Council 

guidelines in light of the direction we 

received from Congress for the RTT– 

ELC program that States receiving grants 

under that program provide an 

assurance that any use of early 

childhood assessments conform to 

National Research Council reports on 

early childhood.5 We believe that 

Congress would also expect that any 

early learning assessments developed 

under the EAG program would be 

similarly aligned with the National 

Research Council findings. 

Further, a KEA developed or 

enhanced under this proposed priority 

must not be used to prevent children’s 

entry into kindergarten. 

In short, the proposed priority is 

intended to produce KEAs that provide 

a snapshot of information on children’s 

learning and development across 

multiple domains and can be integrated 

into States’ student assessment systems, 

and if they exist, included in a States’ 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment systems. The data generated 

from a KEA developed or enhanced 

through this grant would inform and 

support educators in providing effective 

learning opportunities to every child, 

and prevent or close achievement gaps. 

Proposed Priority 1: Kindergarten 

Entry Assessment. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose a project that supports the 

development or enhancement of a KEA 

that meets the following requirements: 

(a) Purpose. The KEA must— 

(1) Yield information that enables 

State and local agencies to effectively 

target investments for early learning and 

development systems serving children 

in the years before kindergarten; 

(2) Yield information that enables 

programmatic decision-making at the 

school level, such as identifying 

individual children’s needs and 

providing necessary supports to 

children and teachers in order to meet 

those needs at kindergarten entry and 

throughout the year; 

(3) Yield information to guide 

individualized instruction for children 

enrolled in kindergarten and throughout 

the school year; 

(4) Provide families with information 

about their children’s learning and 

development based on the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice); and 

(5) Not be used to prevent children’s 

entry into kindergarten. 

(b) Design. The KEA must— 

(1) Be a component of a State’s 

student assessment system, including, a 

State’s comprehensive early learning 

assessment system (as defined in this 

notice) for each State included in an 

application in which a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system exists; 

(2) Be aligned with a set of early 

learning and development standards (as 

defined in this notice); 

(3) Measure the full range of learning 

and development across the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice); 

(4) Measure children’s learning and 

development against a set of levels of 

performance where the levels of 

performance encompass descriptors of 

what a child knows and is able to do for 

each level, are common statewide, and, 

if the applicant State applies on behalf 

of a consortium, are common across 

States in the consortium; 

(5) Provide a summative assessment 

of each child’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry 

across the essential domains of school 

readiness (as defined in this notice); 

(6) Be capable of assessing all 

children in the applicant State, and if 

the State applies as part of a consortium, 

all children in the consortium; 

(7) Be developed consistent with 

universal design principles to be 

accessible to all children, including 

children with disabilities or 

developmental delays and English 

learners (as defined in this notice); 

(8) As needed, provide appropriate 

accommodations and supports for 

children with disabilities or 

developmental delays and English 

learners (as defined in this notice) (e.g., 

augmentative communication devices 

and assistive technologies); 

(9) Be administered soon enough after 

a child’s enrollment into kindergarten to 

achieve the purposes for which the 

assessment was developed, including 

the purposes specified in paragraph (a) 

of this priority; 

(10) Use multiple methods (e.g., 

performance tasks, selected responses, 

observational ratings) to measure 

children’s performance and 

development; 

(11) Be administered by a trained 

assessor or assessors; 

(12) Be designed to incorporate 

technology in the collection of student 

data and in the process of assessing 

children’s performance on learning and 

development tasks; and 

(13) Be cost-effective to administer, 

maintain, and enhance during and after 

the project period. 

(c) Technical Quality. The KEA must 

measure children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry in 

ways that— 

(1) Are consistent with nationally 

recognized professional and technical 

standards for assessment; 

(2) Are consistent with the 

recommendations of the National 

Research Council report on early 

childhood assessments; 6

(3) Are valid, reliable, and appropriate 

for their intended purposes; 

(4) Provide a valid and reliable 

measure across the performance 

spectrum of each child’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry, 

including children with disabilities or 

developmental delays and English 

learners. 

(d) Data. The KEA must produce data 

and information that— 

(1) Allow, at kindergarten entry, for a 

valid and reliable interpretation of each 

child’s learning and development across 

the essential domains of school 

readiness (as defined in this notice) 

with each domain making a significant 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
5340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this 

program must comply with the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and 34 CFR Part 

99, as well as State and local requirements 

regarding privacy. 

contribution to the overall 

comprehensive score; 

(2) Can be reported to and easily 

understood and used by various 

stakeholders, including families, 

teachers, administrators, early learning 

providers, and policy-makers, consistent 

with requirements of Federal, State, and 

local privacy laws; and 

(3) Can be incorporated into a State’s 

longitudinal data system (SLDS) and a 

State’s early learning data system (if it 

is separate from an SLDS), consistent 

with requirements of Federal, State, and 

local privacy laws. 

(e) Compatibility. The KEA must use 

approaches to assessment design and 

implementation (e.g., use of technology, 

assessment administration, scoring, and 

reporting) that facilitate the integration 

of the KEA with a State’s student 

assessment system, including a State’s 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system (as defined in this 

notice) for each State included in an 

application in which a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system exists. 

Proposed Priority 2—Early Learning 

Collaborative Efforts Among States 

Background: The Department values 

the benefits derived from States working 

together and, therefore, proposes 

collaborative efforts among States as a 

priority for the development or 

enhancement of KEAs. As noted earlier, 

States are working together in consortia 

under the RTTA program to develop 

new assessment systems that measure 

student knowledge and skills against a 

common set of college- and career-ready 

standards in English language arts and 

mathematics. States are also 

collaborating under the GSEG program 

to develop companion alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

achievement standards. With assistance 

from the EAG program, States also are 

working together to develop ELP 

assessments aligned with common ELP 

standards. 

Similarly, because of the complexity 

of developing or enhancing a KEA, 

States in collaboration may yield better 

results than those undertaking this effort 

alone. States working in collaboration 

can build on each State’s expertise and 

experience and generate efficiencies in 

development, costs, implementation, 

and uses of results. 

In addition, data produced by a KEA 

administered across multiple States are 

more meaningful when the early 

learning and development standards (as 

defined in this notice) are the same 

across States, and can provide a 

common framework for understanding 

the level of children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry. 

The Department is considering using 

this priority as a competitive preference 

priority in the FY 2013 competition. An 

applicant would receive a higher 

number of points based on the extent to 

which it includes a greater number of 

States in the consortium, with three to 

four States representing a low number of 

States, five to seven States representing 

an intermediate number of States, and 

eight or more States representing a high 

number of States. 

Proposed Priority 2: Early Learning 

Collaborative Efforts Among States. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must— 

(a) Include a minimum of three States 

in the consortium and propose 

developing or enhancing a common 

KEA for those States. An applicant will 

receive a greater number of points under 

this priority based on the extent to 

which it includes a greater number of 

States in its consortium; 

(b) Adopt or propose a plan for all 

States in the consortium to adopt a set 

of early learning and development 

standards (as defined in this notice) 

that, for at least the year prior to 

kindergarten entry, are substantially 

identical across all States in the 

consortium; 

(c) Adopt or propose a plan for all 

States in the consortium to adopt the 

common KEA; and 

(d) Provide in the memorandum of 

understanding or other binding 

agreement executed by each State in the 

consortium an assurance that, as a 

condition of remaining in the 

consortium, the State will, no later than 

the end of the project period, adopt the 

common KEA developed under this 

priority and the set of early learning and 

development standards (as defined in 

this notice) upon which the KEA is 

based. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, the Department considers only 

applications that meet the priority (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Requirement: 

Background: The proposed 

requirement is designed to support the 

transition to ongoing operational 

administration of assessments 

developed under the EAG program. 

We would add this proposed 

requirement to the existing 

requirements for the EAG program 

established on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 

21986). We list the existing 

requirements below to provide context 

and make commenting on the proposed 

requirement easier. We invite comment 

on the proposed requirement only. The 

existing requirements are that an 

eligible applicant awarded a grant under 

this program must: 

(a) Evaluate the validity, reliability, 

and fairness of any assessments or other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed under a grant from this 

competition, and make available 

documentation of evaluations of 

technical quality through formal 

mechanisms (e.g., peer-reviewed 

journals) and informal mechanisms 

(e.g., newsletters), both in print and 

electronically; 

(b) Actively participate in any 

applicable technical assistance activities 

conducted or facilitated by the 

Department or its designees, coordinate 

with the RTTA program in the 

development of assessments under this 

program, and participate in other 

activities as determined by the 

Department; 

(c) Develop a strategy to make 

student-level data that result from any 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed under a grant 

from this competition available on an 

ongoing basis for research, including for 

prospective linking, validity, and 

program improvement studies; 7

(d) Ensure that any assessments or 

other assessment-related instruments 

developed under a grant from this 

competition will be operational (ready 

for large-scale administration) at the end 

of the project period; 

(e) Ensure that funds awarded under 

the EAG program are not used to 

support the development of standards, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5341 

8National Research Council (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

such as under the English language 

proficiency assessment system priority 

or any other priority; 

(f) Maximize the interoperability of 

any assessments and other assessmentrelated instruments developed with 

funds from this competition across 

technology platforms and the ability for 

States to move their assessments from 

one technology platform to another by 

doing the following, as applicable, for 

any assessments developed with funds 

from this competition by— 

(1) Developing all assessment items in 

accordance with an industry-recognized 

open-licensed interoperability standard 

that is approved by the Department 

during the grant period, without nonstandard extensions or additions; and 

(2) Producing all student-level data in 

a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period; 

(g) Unless otherwise protected by law 

or agreement as proprietary information, 

make any assessment content (i.e., 

assessments and assessment items) and 

other assessment-related instruments 

developed with funds from this 

competition freely available to States, 

technology platform providers, and 

others that request it for purposes of 

administering assessments, provided 

that those parties receiving assessment 

content comply with consortium or 

State requirements for test or item 

security; and 

(h) For any assessments and other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed with funds from this 

competition, use technology to the 

maximum extent appropriate to 

develop, administer, and score the 

assessments and report results. 

Proposed Requirement: 

The Assistant Secretary proposes the 

following requirement for this program. 

The Department may apply this 

requirement in any year in which this 

program is in effect: 

(i) Adopt and implement any 

assessments, other assessment-related 

instruments developed or enhanced 

under the proposed project, and any 

standards upon which they are based. In 

addition, if the applicant State applies 

as, or on behalf of a consortium of 

States, it must provide in any 

memorandum of understanding or other 

binding agreement executed by each 

State in the consortium an assurance 

that, to remain in the consortium, the 

State will adopt and implement any 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed or enhanced 

under the proposed project and any 

standards upon which they are based by 

the end of the project period. 

Proposed Definitions: 

Background: 

Several important terms associated 

with the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice are not defined 

in the EAG statute. We would add the 

proposed definitions to the existing 

definitions for the EAG program 

established on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 

21986), though we are proposing to 

modify the definition of ‘‘English 

learner’’ established in 2011 in order to 

broaden the definition to include young 

children. 

Proposed Definitions: 

The Assistant Secretary proposes 

definitions for the EAG program. The 

Department may apply one or more of 

these new definitions, and any 

previously established definitions, in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

Comprehensive early learning 

assessment system means a coordinated 

and comprehensive system of multiple 

assessments, each of which is valid and 

reliable for its specified purpose and for 

the population with which it will be 

used, that organizes information about 

the process and context of young 

children’s learning and development in 

order to help teachers make informed 

instructional and programmatic 

decisions and that conforms with the 

recommendations of the National 

Research Council report on early 

childhood assessments 8 by including, at 

a minimum: (a) Screening measures (as 

defined in this notice); (b) formative 

assessments; (c) measures of 

environmental quality (as defined in 

this notice); (d) measures of the quality 

of adult-child interactions (as defined in 

this notice); and (e) a kindergarten entry 

assessment (KEA). 

Early learning and development 

standards means a set of expectations, 

guidelines, or developmental milestones 

that— 

(a) Describe what all children from 

birth to kindergarten entry should know 

and be able to do and their dispositions 

toward learning; 

(b) Are appropriate for each age group 

(e.g., infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers); for English learners; and 

for children with disabilities or 

developmental delays; 

(c) Cover all essential domains of 

school readiness (as defined in this 

notice); 

(d) Are universally designed and 

developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate; and 

(e) Are aligned with the State’s K–3 

academic standards in, at a minimum, 

early literacy and mathematics. 

English learner means a child, 

including a child aged three and 

younger, who is an English learner 

consistent with the definition of a child 

who is ‘‘limited English proficient,’’ as 

applicable, in section 9101(25) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended. 

Essential domains of school readiness 

means the domains of language and 

literacy development, cognition and 

general knowledge (including early 

mathematics and early scientific 

development), approaches toward 

learning, physical well-being and motor 

development (including adaptive skills), 

and social and emotional development. 

Formative assessment (also known as 

a classroom-based or ongoing 

assessment) means assessment 

questions, tools, and processes— 

(a) That are— 

(1) Specifically designed to monitor 

children’s progress; 

(2) Valid and reliable for their 

intended purposes and their target 

populations; and 

(3) Linked directly to the curriculum; 

and 

(b) The results of which are used to 

guide and improve instructional 

practices. 

Measures of environmental quality 

means valid and reliable indicators of 

the overall quality of the early learning 

environment. 

Measures of the quality of adult-child 

interactions means the measures 

obtained through valid and reliable 

processes for observing how teachers 

and caregivers interact with children, 

where such processes are designed to 

promote child learning and to identify 

strengths and areas for improvement for 

early learning professionals. 

Screening measures means age and 

developmentally appropriate, valid, and 

reliable instruments that are used to 

identify children who may need followup services to address developmental, 

learning, or health needs in, at a 

minimum, the areas of physical health, 

behavioral health, oral health, child 

development, vision, and hearing. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

Background: The Department intends 

that the selection criteria used for 

competitions for EAG funds will ensure 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
5342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that EAG projects address the most 

critical needs of education. The 

Department also expects that the 

selection criteria used for competitions 

for EAG funds will ensure that any 

assessments funded under this program 

will be of high technical quality. We 

established selection criteria for the 

EAG program on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 

21986), and April 30, 2012 (77 FR 

25470). The 2011 selection criteria 

addressed the assessment design and 

the assessment development plan; 

however, those criteria are not 

appropriate for entry assessments 

within a KEA. Therefore, we are 

proposing two new selection criteria 

that address similar issues but with a 

focus on kindergarten children. 

The proposed selection criteria (h) 

and (i) would be used in combination 

with the selection criteria that have 

already been established. The 

Department notes that the 2011 

assessment design selection criterion (b) 

is inconsistent with both the proposed 

kindergarten entry assessment design 

criterion (h) and the purposes of the 

proposed KEA priority, and the 

Department does not intend to use 

selection criterion (b) with the proposed 

KEA priority. 

The Department also notes that the 

2011 assessment development plan 

selection criterion (c) is inconsistent 

with both the proposed kindergarten 

entry assessment development plan 

selection criterion (i) and the purposes 

of the proposed KEA priority, and the 

Department does not intend to use the 

2011 selection criterion (c) with the 

proposed KEA priority. 

We list the existing selection criteria 

below to provide context and to make 

commenting on the proposed selection 

criteria easier. We invite comments on 

the proposed selection criteria only. 

The existing selection criteria are: 

(a) Theory of action. The Secretary 

reviews each application to determine 

the extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s theory of action is logical, 

coherent, and credible, and will result 

in improved student outcomes. In 

determining the extent to which the 

theory of action has these attributes, we 

will consider the description of, and 

rationale for— 

(1) How the assessment results will be 

used (e.g., at the State, local educational 

agency, school, classroom, and student 

levels); 

(2) How the assessments and 

assessment results will be incorporated 

into coherent educational systems (i.e., 

systems that include standards, 

assessments, curriculum, instruction, 

and professional development) of the 

State(s) participating in the grant; and 

(3) How those educational systems as 

a whole will improve student 

achievement. 

(b) Assessment design. The Secretary 

reviews each application to determine 

the extent to which the design of the 

eligible applicant’s proposed 

assessments is innovative, feasible, and 

consistent with the theory of action. In 

determining the extent to which the 

design has these attributes, we will 

consider— 

(1) The number and types of 

assessments, as appropriate (e.g., 

diagnostic assessments, summative 

assessments); 

(2) How the assessments will measure 

student knowledge and skills against the 

full range of the relevant standards, 

including the standards against which 

student achievement has traditionally 

been difficult to measure, provide an 

accurate measure of student proficiency 

on those standards, including for 

students who are high- and lowperforming in academic areas, and 

provide an accurate measure of student 

progress in the relevant area over a full 

academic year; 

(3) How the assessments will produce 

the required student performance data, 

as described in the priority; 

(4) How and when during the 

academic year different types of student 

data will be available to inform and 

guide instruction, interventions, and 

professional development; 

(5) The types of data that will be 

produced by the assessments, which 

must include student achievement data 

and other data specified in the relevant 

priority; 

(6) The uses of the data that will be 

produced by the assessments, including 

(but not limited to)— 

(i) Determining individual student 

achievement and student progress; 

determining, as appropriate and as one 

of multiple measures, individual 

principal and teacher effectiveness, if 

applicable; and professional 

development and support needs; 

(ii) Informing teaching, learning, and 

program improvement; and 

(7) The frequency and timing of 

administration of the assessments, and 

the rationale for these; 

(8) The number and types of items 

(e.g., performance tasks, selected 

responses, observational rating, brief or 

extended constructed responses) and 

the distribution of item types within the 

assessments, including the extent to 

which the items will be varied and elicit 

complex student demonstrations or 

applications of knowledge, skills, and 

approaches to learning, as appropriate 

(descriptions should include a concrete 

example of each item type proposed); 

and the rationale for using these item 

types and their distributions; 

(9) The assessments’ administration 

mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil, teacher 

rating, computer-based, or other 

electronic device), and the rationale for 

the mode; 

(10) The methods for scoring student 

performance on the assessments, the 

estimated turnaround times for scoring, 

and the rationale for these; and 

(11) The reports that will be produced 

based on the assessments, and for each 

report: the key data it will present; its 

intended use; target audience (e.g., 

students, parents, teachers, 

administrators, policymakers); and its 

presentation in an understandable and 

uniform format and, to the extent 

practicable, in a language that parents 

can understand. 

(c) Assessment development plan. 

The Secretary reviews each application 

to determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s plan for developing 

the proposed assessments will ensure 

that the assessments are ready by the 

end of the grant period for wide-scale 

administration in a manner that is 

timely, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the proposed design and 

incorporates a process for ongoing 

feedback and improvement. In 

determining the extent to which the 

assessment development plan has these 

attributes, the Department will 

consider— 

(1)(i) The approaches for developing 

assessment items (e.g., evidencecentered design, universal design) and 

the rationale for using those approaches; 

and the development phases and 

processes to be implemented consistent 

with the approaches; and 

(ii) The types of personnel (e.g., 

practitioners, content experts, 

assessment experts, experts in assessing 

English learners, linguists, experts in 

second language acquisition, experts in 

assessing students with disabilities, 

psychometricians, cognitive scientists, 

institution of higher education 

representatives, experts on career 

readiness standards, and other key 

stakeholders) involved in each 

development phase and process; 

(2) The approach and strategy for 

designing and developing 

accommodations, accommodation 

policies, and methods for standardizing 

the use of those accommodations for 

students with disabilities; 

(3) The approach and strategy for 

ensuring scalable, accurate, and 

consistent scoring of items, including 

the approach and moderation system for 

any human-scored items and the extent 

to which teachers are trained and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5343 

involved in the administration and 

scoring of assessments; 

(4) The approach and strategy for 

developing the reporting system; and 

(5) The overall approach to quality 

control and the strategy for field-testing 

assessment items, accommodations, 

scoring systems, and reporting systems, 

including, with respect to assessment 

items and accommodations, the use of 

representative sampling of all types of 

student populations, taking into 

particular account high- and lowperforming students, different types of 

English learners (e.g., recently arrived 

English learners, former English 

learners, migratory English learners, and 

English learners with disabilities), and 

students with disabilities. 

(d) Research and evaluation. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s research and 

evaluation plan will ensure that the 

assessments developed are valid, 

reliable, and fair for their intended 

purposes. In determining the extent to 

which the research and evaluation plan 

has these attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The plan for identifying and 

employing psychometric techniques 

suitable for verifying, as appropriate to 

each assessment, its construct, 

consequential, and predictive validity; 

external validity; reliability; fairness; 

precision across the full performance 

continuum; and comparability within 

and across grade levels; and 

(2) The plan for determining whether 

the assessments are being implemented 

as designed and the theory of action is 

being realized, including whether the 

intended effects on individuals and 

institutions are being achieved. 

(e) Professional capacity and 

outreach. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine the extent to 

which the eligible applicant’s plan for 

implementing the proposed assessments 

is feasible, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the theory of action. In 

determining the extent to which the 

implementation plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The plan for supporting teachers 

and administrators in implementing the 

assessments and for developing, in an 

ongoing manner, their professional 

capacity to use the assessments and 

results to inform and improve 

instructional practice; and 

(2) The strategy and plan for 

informing the public and key 

stakeholders (including teachers, 

administrators, families, legislators, and 

policymakers) in each State or in each 

member State within a consortium 

about the assessments and for building 

support from the public and those 

stakeholders. 

(f) Technology approach. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant would use technology 

effectively to improve the quality, 

accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and 

efficiency of the proposed assessments. 

In determining the extent to which the 

eligible applicant is using technology 

effectively, we will consider— 

(1) The description of, and rationale 

for, the ways in which technology will 

be used in assessment design, 

development, administration, scoring, 

and reporting; the types of technology to 

be used (including whether the 

technology is existing and commercially 

available or is being newly developed); 

and how other States or organizations 

can re-use in a cost-effective manner 

any technology platforms and 

technology components developed 

under this grant; and 

(2) How technology-related 

implementation or deployment barriers 

will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to 

local access to internet-based 

assessments). 

(g) Project management. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s project management 

plan will result in implementation of 

the proposed assessments on time, 

within budget, and in a manner that is 

financially sustainable over time. In 

determining the extent to which the 

project management plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The project workplan and 

timeline, including, for each key 

deliverable (e.g., necessary 

procurements and any needed approvals 

for human subjects research, 

assessment, scoring and moderation 

system, professional development 

activities), the major milestones, 

deadlines, and entities responsible for 

execution; 

(2) The approach to identifying, 

managing, and mitigating risks 

associated with the project; 

(3) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s budget is adequate to 

support the development of assessments 

that meet the requirements of the 

priority and includes costs that are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and significance of the proposed 

project and the number of students to be 

served; 

(4) For each applicant State or for 

each member State within a consortium, 

the estimated costs for the ongoing 

administration, maintenance, and 

enhancement of the operational 

assessments after the end of the project 

period for the grant and a plan for how 

the State will fund the assessments over 

time (including by allocating to the 

assessments funds for existing State or 

local assessments that will be replaced 

by the new assessments); and 

(5) The quality and commitment of 

the personnel who will carry out the 

proposed project, including the 

qualifications, relevant training, and 

experience of the project director and 

other key project personnel, and the 

extent to which the time commitments 

of the project director and other key 

project personnel are appropriate and 

adequate to meet the objectives of the 

proposed project. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

The Assistant Secretary proposes the 

following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under this 

program. We may apply these criteria or 

any of the existing selection criteria in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. In the notice inviting applications 

and the application package, the 

Department will announce the selection 

criteria to be applied and the maximum 

possible points assigned to each 

criterion. 

(h) Kindergarten entry assessment 

design. 

The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine the extent to 

which the design of the eligible 

applicant’s proposed assessment is 

innovative, feasible, and consistent with 

the theory of action. In determining the 

extent to which the design has these 

attributes, the Department will 

consider— 

(1) How the assessment will measure 

child performance and development 

against early learning and development 

standards (as defined in this notice); 

(2) The steps proposed for ensuring 

that the assessment is aligned with the 

specific early learning and development 

standards on which the assessment is 

based; 

(3) The extent to which data from the 

assessment can be incorporated into a 

State’s longitudinal data system (SLDS) 

and a State’s early learning data system 

(if it is separate from an SLDS) through 

the use of or connection to common 

data elements and definitions, such as 

the Common Education Data Standards 

(https://ceds.ed.gov/), consistent with 

requirements of Federal, State, and local 

privacy laws; 

(4) The intended uses of the data to 

be generated by the assessment, which 

must include, but need not be limited 

to— 

(i) Determining the level of individual 

child learning and development; 

(ii) Identifying teacher professional 

development and support needs; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
5344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Informing teaching, learning, and 

program improvement; and 

(iv) Engaging families in the early 

learning of their children; 

(5) The number and types of items 

(e.g., performance tasks, selected 

responses, observational ratings) and the 

distribution of item types within the 

assessment, including the variation of 

the items and the rationale for using 

these item types and their distributions; 

(6) The assessment’s administration 

mode(s) (e.g., direct, observation, or 

administered using an electronic 

device), and the rationale for the 

mode(s); 

(7) The methods for scoring child 

performance on the assessments, the 

estimated turnaround times for scoring, 

and the rationale(s) for these; 

(8) The applicant’s plan to set levels 

of performance for the assessment, 

where the levels of performance 

encompass descriptors of what a child 

knows and is able to do for each level, 

and for how the applicant will 

meaningfully engage and solicit 

stakeholder input on the development 

of levels of performance that are valid 

and reliable for children’s learning and 

development; and 

(9) The reports and interpretation 

guides that will be produced based on 

the assessments, and for each report and 

interpretation guide: the key data it will 

present; its intended use; its target 

audience (e.g., families, teachers, 

administrators, policymakers, and other 

stakeholders); and how its presentation 

will be in an understandable and 

uniform format and, to the extent 

practicable, in a language that families 

can understand. 

(i) Kindergarten entry assessment 

development plan. The Secretary 

reviews each application to determine 

the extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s plan for developing the 

proposed KEA will ensure that the 

assessments are ready by the end of the 

grant period for wide-scale 

administration in a manner that is 

timely, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the proposed design and 

incorporates a process for ongoing 

feedback and improvement. In 

determining the extent to which the 

assessment development plan has these 

attributes, the Department will 

consider— 

(1)(i) The approaches for developing 

assessment items (e.g., evidencecentered design, universal design), the 

rationale for using those approaches, 

and the development phases and 

processes to be implemented consistent 

with the approaches; 

(ii) The types of personnel involved in 

each development phase and process 

(e.g., practitioners, experts in early 

learning and development, experts in 

the assessment of young children, 

content experts, assessment experts, 

experts in assessing children with 

disabilities or developmental delays and 

English learners, psychometricians, 

cognitive scientists, and other key 

stakeholders); 

(2) The approach and strategy for 

designing and developing 

accommodations, accommodation 

policies, and methods for standardizing 

the use of those accommodations for 

children with disabilities or 

developmental delays and English 

learners (as defined in this notice); 

(3) The approach and strategy for 

ensuring scalable, accurate, and 

consistent scoring of items, including 

the approach and moderation system for 

any items not scored by machine and 

the extent to which teachers are trained 

and involved in the administration and 

scoring of assessments; 

(4) The approach and strategy for 

developing the reporting system; and 

(5) The overall approach to quality 

control, maintaining the integrity of the 

assessment process, field-testing 

assessment items, accommodations, 

scoring systems, and reporting systems, 

including, with respect to assessment 

items and accommodations, the use of 

representative sampling of all types of 

child populations, taking into particular 

account the full range of learning and 

development across the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice), and including children 

with disabilities or developmental 

delays and English learners (as defined 

in this notice). 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria: 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which the 

Department chooses to use these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive Order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5345 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, the 

Department selected those approaches 

that would maximize net benefits. Based 

on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The proposed priority for KEAs and 

the other proposed priority, along with 

the associated proposed requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria, 

would benefit individual children by 

supporting the development or 

enhancement of KEAs that would 

provide educators with timely and 

useful information to guide 

individualized instruction for children 

at kindergarten entry and throughout 

the year. In addition, the resulting 

assessments would benefit educators, 

administrators, and other stakeholders 

by yielding information that can be used 

to target investments for the education 

systems serving children in the years 

before kindergarten. A KEA would also 

support the implementation of State 

reform efforts in the area of early 

learning. 

The proposed priority for early 

learning collaborative efforts among 

States would encourage States to work 

together on developing a common KEA 

rather than developing or using separate 

KEAs, thus pooling expertise and 

experience while also creating 

efficiencies, including cost-efficiencies. 

The priority would also help ensure that 

a KEA developed by a consortium is 

made available for use by multiple 

States. It also would support the 

collection of comparable data regarding 

the level of children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry. 

The proposed selection criteria would 

help ensure that the assessments 

developed by grantees are of high 

quality, meet relevant technical 

standards, and align with other 

assessment work funded by the 

Department. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive Order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

Order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans 

regarding this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: January 22, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01567 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

United States Copyright Office 

37 CFR Parts 201 and 210 

[Docket No. 2012–1] 

Copyright Office Fees 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking: 

Extension of reply comment periods. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office is extending the deadline for 

filing reply comments regarding its 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

concerning the establishment of a fee 

schedule for filing cable and satellite 

statements of account for use of the 

statutory licenses that provide for the 

secondary transmission of broadcast 

programming by cable and satellite 

companies. 

DATES: Reply comments on the 

proposed regulation must be received in 

the Office of the General Counsel of the 

Copyright Office no later than 5 p.m. 

Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on 

February 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The Copyright Office 

strongly prefers that reply comments be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

submission page is posted on the 

Copyright Office Web site at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/newfees/ 

comments/. The Web site interface 

requires submitters to complete a form 

specifying name and other required 

information, and to upload comments as 

an attachment. To meet accessibility 

standards, all comments must be 

uploaded in a single file in either the 

Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) 

format that contains searchable, 

accessible text (not an image); Microsoft 

Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format 

(RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a 

scanned document). The maximum file 

size is 6 megabytes (MB). The name of 

the submitter and organization should 

appear on both the form and the face of 

the comments. All comments will be 

posted publicly on the Copyright Office 

Web site exactly as they are received, 

along with names and organizations if 

provided. If electronic submission of 

comments is not feasible, please contact 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with